Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:24:18 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] flex_array: Change behaviour on zero size allocations
Message-ID: <20110201102417.GL3070@secunet.com>
References: <20110131085213.GK3070@secunet.com>
 <1296491497.7797.3792.camel@nimitz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1296491497.7797.3792.camel@nimitz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1219
Lines: 31

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 08:31:37AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> 
> I think this still has some of the issues of the earlier patch.  The
> zero-size check needs to be moved after the ->total_nr_elements check.
> Otherwise, this won't produce any errors:
> 
> 	fa = flex_array_alloc(0, 100, GFP_KERNEL);
> 	flex_array_put(fa, 1001, ptr, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> > @@ -284,6 +297,8 @@ void *flex_array_get(struct flex_array *fa, unsigned int element_nr)
> >         int part_nr = fa_element_to_part_nr(fa, element_nr);
> >         struct flex_array_part *part;
> > 
> > +       if (!fa->total_nr_elements || !fa->element_size)
> > +               return NULL;
> >         if (element_nr >= fa->total_nr_elements)
> >                 return NULL;
> >         if (elements_fit_in_base(fa))
> 
> Do you really need to check fa->total_nr_elements both for zero and
> against element_nr?  Seems a but superfluous to me.
> 

Both objections are correct, I'll send an updated patch.

Steffen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/